ALLAH YAR AND 9 OTHERS vs FAZAL KARIM AND 5 OTHERS
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners-vendees' civil revision challenging the trial court's permission allowing the respondent-plaintiff to correct the particulars of a defendant in the plaint. The core legal question concerned whether the correction of a defendant's name in the plaint, where a clerical mistake resulted in a wrong name being assigned to the intended person, constitutes a permissible amendment or an improper addition of a party. The Supreme Court held that the mistake was merely a clerical error in describing the correct person rather than an omission to implead a necessary party, and upheld the amendment. The key principle laid down is that correcting a misdescription or clerical error in the name of an intended defendant already sought to be impleaded is permissible and distinct from impleading a wrong person or omitting a necessary party.
- Whether the correction of a defendant's name in a plaint due to a clerical mistake constitutes an improper addition of a party?
- Is the correction of a misdescribed name of an intended defendant permissible under procedural law?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has 'been sought from judgment dated 24-1-1982 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners (vendees-defendant's) Civil Revision challenging the grant of permission by the trill Court to the respondent plaintiff to correct the particulars of Allah Yar petitioner defendant in the array, of defendants in the plaint, was dismissed.
2. ' Allah Yar petitioner was undoubtedly one of the vendees who should have been. Arrayed as a defendant in the plaint. The respondents' plea was that although the "same person" namely, Allah Yar was intended to be impleaded as the defendant and no other person in his place was to be impleaded as a defendant, by a clerical mistake instead of writing the name of the said person as Allah Yar son of Kamir it was mentioned as Amir son of Kamir. The trial Court held that the mistake was clerical. The finding of the High Court for that very reason is that although the' same person (who was in reality a vendee) was intended to be impleaded, his name was wrongly mentioned therefore it was not a case of omission to implead "a person" who should have been impleaded as a defendant.
3. It was not a mistake in impleading a wrong person. It was a' mistake in describing the correct person through a wrong name. The approach of the High Court is unexceptionable. The amendment allowed by the trial Court is in accordance with the principle laid down in a recent judgment of this Court in Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others (1). This petition fails, leave to appeal accordingly, is refused.
(1) PLD 1985 SC 345